Specificity in ethnography matters only for what it reveals about the wider conjuncture

Evidence

There is however a danger here that ‘the real’ and the ‘local’ become fetishised in particular ways, as though the granular and highly specific are worthy of analysis in and of themselves, rather than for what they reveal about the wider conjuncture. It also sets up some false oppositions between ethnographic and textual methods, and between empirical research and theory. In my reading, Gilroy has an ethnographic sensibility, and is interested in culture, in the vernacular, and in everyday spaces of the city, even if he and others are not inclined towards directly interviewing research participants. Equally, while After Empire is theoretically expansive, there are many ethnographic monographs that develop theory just as complex, abstract and oblique. The suggestion that there is a need for empirical work because it is less abstract is not in itself a compelling or sufficient rationale. — Luke de Noronha, The conviviality of the overpoliced,…, 40

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the methodological critique that granular ethnographic detail and abstract theory are not truly opposed, reframing what makes empirical research valuable beyond its concreteness.
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — Luke de Noronha, The conviviality of the overpoliced,…, 40